This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Magnetic resonance imaging article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Magnetic resonance imaging has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) seems widely used to diagnose/characterise prostate cancer, [1] and is being used experimentally for diagnosing clear-cell renal cancer. Is there a standard mpMRI or a variety ? - Rod57 ( talk) 18:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap ( talk · contribs) 12:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm happy to see that this article's progress towards GA status is being resumed; it is not at all far from arriving there. However, some issues remain unaddressed since 2017, as can be seen by comparing the open items in Talk:Magnetic resonance imaging/GA1 with the current state of the article.
In particular, there remain some "citation needed" tags from then, and some "page needed" tags which have also not been addressed in the intervening period; in addition, I've tagged an uncited paragraph in Angiography, and a claim in History, as also needing to be cited.
I notice some items are now marked as needing update.
"Non-medical use" still seems to me to be far too brief. In particular, something must be said about its use in biological research. For instance,
Application of magnetic resonance imaging in zoology is a substantial area of application of MRI, leaving aside the protein-analysing capabilities of NMR which now seem to be out of scope given what is written in the lead, thankyou. You might also mention
MRI in botany (whole plants). Perhaps you should also mention
MRI in palaeontology (fossils).
"History" too seems very insubstantial, given the quite decent History of magnetic resonance imaging which has plenty of citations, images, and detail. A rather better summary of that article is required here.
The "Economics" section remains far too US-centric, and I mentioned back in 2017 that each price needs to be associated with a date, i.e. this cost $xxx in 2007 or whatever.
Also from 2017 (let's check these are now resolved):
--- I'm not convinced, either, that one-sentence sections in By organ or system are satisfactory. Suggest a little detail for Cardiovascular and Musculoskeletal to make them worthwhile sections.
--- The sudden dive into extreme technicality in the "Overview table" in Sequences is a bit uncomfortable. The material is repeated from the main article, MRI sequences, which isn't the right way to handle a 'main' link. I suggest we remove the table and write a paragraph or two with one or two images only (the most clearly distinct, perhaps) to explain what the idea of sequences is all about, with the best secondary sources.
--- The 'Other specialized configurations' is similarly far more technical than the rest of the article, and very long. If it's the case that these are rather specialized and rare techniques, then they might go in a subsidiary
list article and be summarized here with a 'main' link and a brief paragraph or two. If they're really rather important then they had better stay but be explained without too much techspeak (a specially juicy one is "heteronuclear magnetization transfer MRI that would image the high-gyromagnetic-ratio hydrogen nucleus instead of the low-gyromagnetic-ratio nucleus that is bonded to the hydrogen atom" but there are plenty of others).
--- These changes will dictate some rewriting of the lead section, which should simply and clearly summarize the text.
When all the above items are resolved, I will re-review the article to see if it 'works' as a piece in its new form. I will also need to do some verification and image checks. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure why the discussion on MRI does not mention anything about its inventor Dr. Raymond Damadian.
References
"While the hazards of ionizing radiation are now well controlled in most medical contexts, an MRI may still be seen as a better choice than a CT scan."
That is a very reductionist view and depends very much on the setting. The way it is written here (in the introduction, possibly read by thousands of patients before getting medical imaging) it conveys a general superiority of MRI over CT, which does not hold true. It's like saying "While the hazards of a sharp blade are well controlled in most food-related contexts, a spoon may still be seen as a better choice than a knife." MRI is simply another tool with a different set of appropriate application scenarios. ~A Radiologist
It would be better if either section was removed or both combined. Especially since the first section is too short. 2001:8003:B027:ED00:C53C:BFB0:A078:1BE0 ( talk) 01:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
In the section on mechanism, it says:
Is the part "First, energy from an oscillating magnetic is applied" referring to "a RF pulse" mentioned later, or are they separate? This should be made clearer. Also, this paragraph doesn't make clear the importance of relaxation times. Further, it's unclear what X and Y are referring to here. AxelBoldt ( talk) 18:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Magnetic resonance imaging article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Magnetic resonance imaging has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) seems widely used to diagnose/characterise prostate cancer, [1] and is being used experimentally for diagnosing clear-cell renal cancer. Is there a standard mpMRI or a variety ? - Rod57 ( talk) 18:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap ( talk · contribs) 12:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm happy to see that this article's progress towards GA status is being resumed; it is not at all far from arriving there. However, some issues remain unaddressed since 2017, as can be seen by comparing the open items in Talk:Magnetic resonance imaging/GA1 with the current state of the article.
In particular, there remain some "citation needed" tags from then, and some "page needed" tags which have also not been addressed in the intervening period; in addition, I've tagged an uncited paragraph in Angiography, and a claim in History, as also needing to be cited.
I notice some items are now marked as needing update.
"Non-medical use" still seems to me to be far too brief. In particular, something must be said about its use in biological research. For instance,
Application of magnetic resonance imaging in zoology is a substantial area of application of MRI, leaving aside the protein-analysing capabilities of NMR which now seem to be out of scope given what is written in the lead, thankyou. You might also mention
MRI in botany (whole plants). Perhaps you should also mention
MRI in palaeontology (fossils).
"History" too seems very insubstantial, given the quite decent History of magnetic resonance imaging which has plenty of citations, images, and detail. A rather better summary of that article is required here.
The "Economics" section remains far too US-centric, and I mentioned back in 2017 that each price needs to be associated with a date, i.e. this cost $xxx in 2007 or whatever.
Also from 2017 (let's check these are now resolved):
--- I'm not convinced, either, that one-sentence sections in By organ or system are satisfactory. Suggest a little detail for Cardiovascular and Musculoskeletal to make them worthwhile sections.
--- The sudden dive into extreme technicality in the "Overview table" in Sequences is a bit uncomfortable. The material is repeated from the main article, MRI sequences, which isn't the right way to handle a 'main' link. I suggest we remove the table and write a paragraph or two with one or two images only (the most clearly distinct, perhaps) to explain what the idea of sequences is all about, with the best secondary sources.
--- The 'Other specialized configurations' is similarly far more technical than the rest of the article, and very long. If it's the case that these are rather specialized and rare techniques, then they might go in a subsidiary
list article and be summarized here with a 'main' link and a brief paragraph or two. If they're really rather important then they had better stay but be explained without too much techspeak (a specially juicy one is "heteronuclear magnetization transfer MRI that would image the high-gyromagnetic-ratio hydrogen nucleus instead of the low-gyromagnetic-ratio nucleus that is bonded to the hydrogen atom" but there are plenty of others).
--- These changes will dictate some rewriting of the lead section, which should simply and clearly summarize the text.
When all the above items are resolved, I will re-review the article to see if it 'works' as a piece in its new form. I will also need to do some verification and image checks. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure why the discussion on MRI does not mention anything about its inventor Dr. Raymond Damadian.
References
"While the hazards of ionizing radiation are now well controlled in most medical contexts, an MRI may still be seen as a better choice than a CT scan."
That is a very reductionist view and depends very much on the setting. The way it is written here (in the introduction, possibly read by thousands of patients before getting medical imaging) it conveys a general superiority of MRI over CT, which does not hold true. It's like saying "While the hazards of a sharp blade are well controlled in most food-related contexts, a spoon may still be seen as a better choice than a knife." MRI is simply another tool with a different set of appropriate application scenarios. ~A Radiologist
It would be better if either section was removed or both combined. Especially since the first section is too short. 2001:8003:B027:ED00:C53C:BFB0:A078:1BE0 ( talk) 01:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
In the section on mechanism, it says:
Is the part "First, energy from an oscillating magnetic is applied" referring to "a RF pulse" mentioned later, or are they separate? This should be made clearer. Also, this paragraph doesn't make clear the importance of relaxation times. Further, it's unclear what X and Y are referring to here. AxelBoldt ( talk) 18:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)